The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

[citation needed]

You refer to supernatural "poofs" , but if that is what the evidence is showing, that multiple organisms suddenly appeared without intermediates then creationism should be one of the studied hypotheses. Your mention of "supernatural poofs" does not diminish my point about God, highlights my point.Before Darwin few people doubted God. Then Darwin seemed to point away from God. Now evidence is supporting the creation hypothesis and the only reason to dispute God is on an emotional level even when the evidence in facts points to God. It has become "trendy" to deny God in scientific circles, the facts point towards God.In the fossil record we see few intermediates, and this radiating out of organisms from Siberia or China as conditions allow with no intermediates for those organisms found. In DNA analysis we see the reduction of coding genes over time, but not the adding over time (I'm referring to unique active coding genes that add fitness). So DNA points to fully intact organisms that then reduce the number of active coding genes over time as they evolve, consistent with creationism.

Organisms did suddenly appear. That is scientific fact. What is not scientific is that even though they suddenly appeared, still scientists assume they evolved:Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the Primordial Strata was noted as early as the 1840s,[14] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection.[15] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.
Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology. Lea & Blanchard. ISBN 1-147-86894-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 306—308. ISBN 1-60206-144-0. OCLC 176630493.

Patently false.

Learn to read.Suddenly and rapidly are not synonymous. And the Cambrian Period lasted about 53 million years so again, not sudden.BUT...I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence of the existence found below the P/T boundary of mammals and humans and reptiles and birds and flowering plants and all of the other kinds that are mentioned as existing before the flood or your concession that you are simply spewing shit.

Liar.

Regarding the earliest marsupial, my comment comes from my research into marsupials a few years back, but I can't find the original supporting info. Investigating this further, it appears that the first AFRICAN marsupials were from Egypt so I stand corrected, thank you for pointing that out. Some claim the first marsupial was from China, others say radiometric dating points to North America. So the truth is still out there, maybe more fossil evidence will give us more clarity into this matter.

And there is still no evidence of ANY marsupials or any other critter created during Creation week below the P/T boundary.Edited by jar, : s not c

quote:

---

You refer to supernatural "poofs" , but if that is what the evidence is showing, that multiple organisms suddenly appeared without intermediates then creationism should be one of the studied hypotheses. Your mention of "supernatural poofs" does not diminish my point about God, highlights my point.

---

Since the evidence shows no such thing, as we have already discussed - plus all the other problems you have with evidence such as dating and the fact that you have a bigger problem with missing fossils than we do - scientists would have to be nuts to accept your views.

quote:

---

Before Darwin few people doubted God. Then Darwin seemed to point away from God. Now evidence is supporting the creation hypothesis and the only reason to dispute God is on an emotional level even when the evidence in facts points to God. It has become "trendy" to deny God in scientific circles, the facts point towards God.

---

The reality is far from being that simple. Darwin undermined one argument for God, but if that was a decisive blow it is only because the idea of God had so little else to support it. The facts do not point to there being any sort of a God.

quote:

---

In the fossil record we see few intermediates, and this radiating out of organisms from Siberia or China as conditions allow with no intermediates for those organisms found.

---

We see few intermediates where we see few fossils. Which is hardly surprising.

quote:

---

In DNA analysis we see the reduction of coding genes over time, but not the adding over time (I'm referring to unique active coding genes that add fitness). So DNA points to fully intact organisms that then reduce the number of active coding genes over time as they evolve, consistent with creationism

---

In reality this is also wrong. DNA analysis shows very little addition of completely new genes but lots of duplication and divergence - including whole-genome duplications - as well as transfers from other organisms (rare in animals but very common in bacteria). And I shouldn't have to point out that doubling the number of coding genes is a large increase in their number.

I have already submitted evidence in this thread that trilobites radiated out from Siberia. If you look through the thread, you will find that evidence.Regarding angiosperms, John Miller Ph.D. Univ of California suggested the following:Page not found - Plant Index
Stebbins (1974, 1984) thought that alpine biomes of northern latitudes might have been the center of early radiation of angiosperms. A similar idea, the eastern Asian centers hypothesis, was put forth by G. Sun et al. (2001). Based on the recovery and study of fossil pollen casings (palynomorphs) recovered from deep-sea drill holes, Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt (2004) suggested that early flowering plants might have evolved in a boreal cradle.Page not found - Plant Index
There is growing consensus among some molecular systematists and paleobotanists on the existence of a 160 million year old angiosperm ghost lineage rooted at the angiosperm-gymnosperm split roughly 300 MYA, prior to the end-Permian extinctionMetatherians spread out from China according to the following:
The oldest metatherian fossils are found in present-day China.[43] About 100 mya, the supercontinent Pangaea was in the process of splitting into the northern continent Laurasia and the southern continent Gondwana, with what would become China and Australia already separated by the Tethys Ocean. From there, metatherians spread westward into modern North America (still attached to Eurasia), where the earliest true marsupials are found.
(Percy this article I just found explains the China/America connection)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You do realise that these are all examples of evolution ?

Yes doubling does occur. But are they unique genes, and does it add fitness?If we go from ~350 genes in the original LUCA, and all life-forms show additional unique genes to the original LUCA, why do evolutionists deny that their theory rests on a gene-adding process for nearly every organism in existence??? Always you guys distract to other processes of evolution that I frankly completely agree with because they are observed.Hmm you guys need to think that through. And some doubling up is not evidence for a process that is CORE to the evolution/creationist debate, the introduction/evolving of completely new unique active coding genes into nearly EVERY organism since the LUCA. Its an interesting theory but observed facts in the laboratory point to evolving from kinds that already had a full complement of unique active coding genes.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Yes, organisms do adapt. So changes will be observed as they radiate out and adapt from a central point and the original kind. But the rapid onset of these organisms without a satisfactory intermediate record points rather to adaptation/evolution from kinds. The lack of intermediates and the lack of an observed process that adds unique genes over time favors creationism. I know this will make you guys angry, and you may get pretty rude. But unfortunately for the theory of evolution, the facts favour creationism.

quote:

---

Yes doubling does occur. But are they unique genes, and does it add fitness?

---

As I pointed out there isn't much in the way of adding unique genes to account for. And the frog with a - relatively - recent doubled genome seems to be doing fine, which is good enough.

quote:

---

If we go from ~350 genes in the original LUCA, and all life-forms show additional unique genes to the original LUCA, why do evolutionists deny that their theory rests on a gene-adding process for nearly every organism in existence??? Always you guys distract to other processes of evolution that I frankly completely agree with because they are observed.

---

It seems somewhat hypocritical of you to be making insinuations while misrepresenting our arguments. There is no denial that genes are added, just the fact that the added genes are usually copies of existing genes which then diverge. Plus, of course, transfers from other organisms, as I pointed out.Maybe you should spend more time getting the facts right and less time inventing false excuses.

quote:

---

Hmm you guys need to think that through. And some doubling up is not evidence for a process that is CORE to the evolution/creationist debate, the introduction/evolving of completely new unique active coding genes into nearly EVERY organism since the LUCA

---

Perhaps you would like to support that assertion - bearing in mind the facts that I have just reminded you of above.

Are you calling me a liar because I used the word "suddenly" instead of the phrase "seemingly rapid"?I don't see the wording as being that great a difference. Your argument is with Darwin, not me. He saw the flaws in his own theory and those same flaws stand today. Evolution is flawed because of the "seemingly rapid" appearance of organisms without intermediates. A weakness in the theory which Darwin recognised.